Appeal No. 1998-3076
Application 08/303,046
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 40 is sustained
because appellant has not presented any arguments to rebut the
examiner’s rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 22 through 30
is reversed because we agree with the appellant (brief, page
16) that Bilas does not have a functional module that
“facingly adjoins said control module.”
Although the circuit breakers in Bilas will perform an
overcurrent protection function, they will not perform the
additional functions listed in claim 31 (reply brief, page 3).
For this reason, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
31, 38, 39 and 42 through 45 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 32 is reversed
because Bilas does not have “a power supply branch connected
to a bus bar backplane to enable power to be distributed
within said system through other branches connected to bus
bars” (reply brief, pages 4 and 5).
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 36 is reversed
because Bilas does not have “a single programmable means at
each node” (reply brief, page 7).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007